Ram Lal Thakur vs . Executive Engineer
2022 Latest Caselaw 5994 HP

Ram Lal Thakur Vs. Executive Engineer

.

Kumarsain Div. HPPWD

Ex. Petition No. 04 of 2021

25.07.2022 Present: Mr. I.S. Chandel, Advocate, for the decree holder/claimant.

M/s Dinesh Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate Generals, with M/s Amit Dhumal, Deputy Advocate General, and Manoj Bagga, Assistant Advocate General, for the judgment

debtor/respondent.

OMP No. 475 of 2022

By way of this application, a prayer has been made

by the execution petitioner for release of the amount which

stands deposited by the Judgment Debtor in the present

proceedings.

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted

that taking into consideration the fact that the award has been

challenged by way of objections preferred under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the execution-petitioner, the

present application cannot be allowed. Learned Additional

Advocate General has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Pooran Chand Nangia Versus National

Fertilizers Ltd (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 245, to stress on

the point that once the applicant has accepted the award passed

by the learned Arbitrator, which is evident from the fact that he

is seeking execution thereof, therefore, now he cannot be

permitted to maintain the objection proceedings under Section

34 of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, he submitted that either

the present execution proceedings be dismissed or in the

alternative, the applicant may withdraw the objections which he

has preferred against the award passed by the learned

.

Arbitrator.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after perusing the averments made in the application as well as

the reply, this Court is of the considered view that as the award

in issue has been challenged by the execution petitioner and not

by the Judgment Debtor, therefore, filing of objections under

Section 34 against the award by the present execution petitioner

cannot become a hindrance in his way for release of the amount

which has been deposited with the present execution petition.

This observation is being made by the Court for the

reason that it is not the judgment debtor who is dissatisfied with

the award but it is the Decree Holder.

The execution petition has been filed for the

execution of the award as has been passed by the learned

Arbitrator which stands accepted by the Judgment Debtor as the

Judgment Debtor has not preferred any objection in this regard.

As far as the judgment relied upon by the learned

Additional Advocate General is concerned, the same is

distinguishable. In the matter which was before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the appellant/claimant therein, participated in

the process of the arbitration proceedings and also received the

award amount announced by the learned Arbitrator, however,

thereafter, he filed objections before the Court of learned District

Judge Guna that the award was without jurisdiction. This

objection was rejected by the Court on the ground that once the

claimant had accepted the award, it was not open to him to

.

challenge the same on the ground that the Arbitrator had no

jurisdiction. The above itself demonstrates that the facts which

were before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were different vis-a-vis

the issue which is before this Court.

In this view of the matter, this application is

disposed of with the direction that let the amount which has

been deposited by the Judgment Debtor be released in favour of

the execution petitioner with up to date interest by remitting the

same in his bank account as per particulars mentioned in the

application.

As prayed for, list after four weeks.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

July 25, 2022 (vinod)